The story of Pittsburgh: Education

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1831622599

Document type:: Multivolume work

Title:: The story of Pittsburgh

Place of publication:: Pittsburgh

Publisher:: First National Bank

Year of publication:: 1919-1930

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1831623714

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-241132

Document type:: Volume

Title:: Education

Volume count:: Vol. 1, nr. 14

Place of publication:: Pittsburgh

Publisher:: First National Bank

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: [ca. 80] Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 93 At that time our population was principally composed of those derived from England, Scotland, North Ireland, and Ireland, who, under the national-origing provision, make one group; from Germany; from the Irish Free State; and lland. Pn = alls committee finds that the population in 1790 derived from the Irish Free State was 140,076. We have just seen that Doctor Shaughnessy sstimates that the number of Irish Catholics in 1790 was from 100,000 to 150,000 and he cites three historians for the point that the Protestant Irish were from North Ireland and not from South Ireland, and we know that some of the Catholic Irish were from North Ireland, so that it clearly follows that there is no difference between Doctor Shaughnessy’s estimate of the South Irish popu- lation in 1790 and the origins committee's, since the origins committee fixes the figure 40,000 higher than his lowest estimate and only 10,000 under his high estimate. There can, therefore, be no dispute as to the Irish quota. As to the German quota: We have seen that there can be no dispute as to the German-born here in 1920, nor as to the children of the German-born, since these are actual census figures with deductions only due to loss of territory in the war. The figure of German-orig'n population in 1920, whose grandchildren or earlier ancestors (other than descendants of the 1790 stock) came from Germany is 29.6 per cent of that group, and yet in the nineteenth century Ger- many contributed only 28.85 per cent of our immigration, and it would seem, therefore, that there can be no dispute on that part of the German popula- sion. As to the German-origin population derived from the 1790 stock, we have seen that if the entire number estimated by Doctor Faust, 360,000. as be- ing of German blood in 1790, be considered as coming from Germany, the Ger- man quota would go up only 2,816, to 18 per cent of the total quota immigra- rion, whereas under the 1890 basis it is 31 per cent of the total quota immi- gration. Moreover, if we reduce the figure of 360,000 to eliminate those who were of German blood from other countries than Germany, the German-origin population in 1790 would only be about 264,000 or only 83,000 greater than found hy the origin committee, and this would only increase the German quota 720. In other words, the difference between Doctor Faust’s figures and the origins committee's figures is immaterial. And we have seen Mr. Frederick Schrader, editor of The Progressive, in his book The Germans in the Making of America accepts Doctor Faust’s figure of 225,000 for the German-origin population in 1775, and may therefore be considered as accepting Doctor Ifaust’s figures for 1790. As to the other groups in 1790, I have heard no dispute as to the group of Dutch origin, and if we succeed, as I believe we have, in finding the maximum of the other groups in 1790, they were very small and if you doubled the 1790 number of any of them. the increase in the present quota of any of them would be negligible. In other words, we see then that the origin figures tested by the claims of the historians of two large national groups are entirely fair and it follows likewise that the 1890 foreign-born quotg are entirely disproportionate and anfair, In conclusion may I say that I have found a widespread feeling among the native stock that they wish to be counted in determining immigration quotas. An immigrant born in 1889 and brought as a baby to this country in time to be included in the 1890 census is counted, in fiixing the 1890 foreign-born quotas, but a person whose people have been in this country for eight genera- tions is not counted. All the descendants, all of the Revolutionary forefathers, all the Civil War veterans and their descendants, most of the Spanish war veterans and their descendants, and almost all those who served in the World War and their children, are excluded from the count and the 1890 foreign oorn, if that system is made Permanent, becomes a sacred class, a new order of aobility as the only group considered fit to determine our quotas. In other words, as a friend of mine expressed it, if your ancestors fought with Wash- ington, or Grant, or Lee, or if you yourself fought with Pershing, you don’t count, whereas if you merely happen to be one of the 8,000,000 foreign born in 1830 you do count. In view of the close accuracy of the origins’ figures as substantiated by the historians of our racial groups and in view of the extreme inaccuracy and unfairness of the 1890 foreign-born quotas, the national origins system became the only fair and all-American. basis for determining quotas and any foreign-born basis is discriminatory and certain to lead to dissension and Jitterness, . Epwarp R. Lewis. BHRR/[—29_____ 7

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Education (Vol. 1, nr. 14)

Multivolume work

Volume

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation